Below is an excerpt of an article I read this morning about what people want in their iPod's. I'm really curious since so many think that radio is dying. Thoughts?

JACOBS MEDIA indicates that iPOD/personal mp3 player growth continues to be impressive, according to the company's web poll "TECH SURVEY III" study conducted with more than 25,000 respondents from over 69 Rock-formatted stations in late-FEBRUARY through early-MARCH.

The study says iPOD owners -- in particular -- want an FM radio in that next NANO or SHUFFLE. The personal mp3 player ownership skyrocketed 34% from last year to 47% of the Rock sample in the 2007 study. And among Alternative listeners, two-thirds (67%) now own an IPOD-like device. Nearly half (45%) of the IPOD-less respondents say they are very or somewhat likely to take the plunge.

The study asked about the most important new feature that consumers desire in their next personal mp3 player. Overwhelmingly, these respondents want an FM tuner (33%).

For more info: http://www.jacobsmedia.com/tech3_ipod.htm

Get a ZUNE....FM tuner built-in! Although it's like strapping an aircraft carrier on your arm compared to the Nano or Shuffle! I can see an FM tuner in the Nano but probably not in the shuffle. FM tuner would probably add $40-$50 to the price tag and would be a possible conflict with Itunes downloads. No FM tuner you need to put something on it and it's so easy to download!!!!

This would be a perfect HD radio value add. Add the tuner, make it record, allow it to queue based on the new and coming program guides.

This is a biased survey. The respondents polled were contacted by rock-formatted radio stations, so it would make sense that these people would have a strong desire for an FM tuner incorporated into an MP3 player. I suspect that if a more random sampling of MP3 player users and prospective buyers were done, radio tuners would show up as a desired feature, but they wouldn't be as much of a priority as the results of this survey make them out to be.

What I would really like to see is a survey asking people what they listen to on their MP3 players. For instance, what percentage of mp3 player usage is done by people listening to spoken word materials, such as podcasts of talk shows? This question is somewhat of a lead-in to the question of whether the lack of availability of AM on mp3 players is for technical reasons or whether it was a marketing decision.

My nerdy little SanDisc Sansa (1GB worth of nerdy) has radio. Less than $100 and holds about 500 tunes. I've seen the research. No one needs more than 500 tunes. You're going to listen to Unchained Melody anyway.

Wouldn't the cost added be more like 40 or 50 cents? I don't think people have much of a concept about how bad FM reception can be without a decent antenna!

If you don't like using ITunes to manage your IPod library, check out YamiPod (it's freeware).

http://www.yamipod.com/main/modules/home/

The newer iPods have quite a bit of compute power in them --and a DSP.

Perhaps the FM might not be so bad, given some aggressive software between the tuner and the listener?

Sorry to hijack, but something just occured to me. I've got a really old walkman type FM radio and it's reception is really solid with just the headset wire acting as the antenna.

Newer units are not so good.

Could the movement toward smaller circuts (and away from inductors in general) be placing artificial limits on how good FM can be on portable devices like this?

The older unit does not have digital display, uses analog volume controls, runs on two AA batteries instead of the AAA ones, etc...

When I take them apart, I see on the newer one, essentially a coupla integrated circuts, a few small surface mount bits, and that's about it for the radio part. There are other things in there to drive displays, etc...

On the older one, it's just a classic analog FM design. Transistors, inductors, caps, etc...

The older one handles multipath far better and will output a stereo signal far longer than the newer ones typically do.

Maybe we are making the radios just a bit too cheap? There is no reason why the better quality analog design could not be blended with the digital stuff to present the same user experience. Overall size will not be the same though.

Speaking of these "silicon tuners," did you know that there are companies now making single chip multimode television tuners that do not require inductors or SAW filters? Microtune is one such company. The marketing literature for these device claims that within a few years, they are expected to replace "can" tuners completely. (Can is a slang reference to the metal shielding traditionally used on RF circuits.)

Overall, I think that these new tuners will result in some very hit-or-miss performance in the radios and TVs that will be made over the next few years. The main reasons for this are:

1) These tuners are designed to be used without shielding.
2) They are meant to go into systems that will contain digital electronics.
3) The people who integrate them into systems generally won't have a lot of experience in RF design (they will be digital guys or curcuit board layout techs).
4) The chips lack a tuned RF input, and they use low power supply voltages (3.3 volts or less). This means that they will overload easily.
5) These chips are built on CMOS processes designed for digital VLSI circuits, not for low noise/low distortion RF circuits.
6) These chips have a lot of digital circuitry on the same die as the RF front end circuitry.

For the non-technical people, I apologize for geeking out on you. I need a pocket proctector now.

Even if these newer tuners sound worse, it probably won't be noticed with earbuds. I hate those things. They don't effectively point the sound into your ear, so it seems like much of what you hear is kind of coming through bone vibrations... much like the way you hear you own voice. Is sounds very lo-fi to me. It just bothers me.

re: lo-fi

With a lack of anything decent from Pink Floyd in the last couple of decades, a lack of hi-fi doesn't matter!

the easy answer is a digital tuner in a portable audio device.

a low current iboc chip set was licensed for production last year.

These tuner-on-a-chip solutions are made for simple integration into a system. The chips made by Silicon Labs and Microtune only require a few capacitors (coupling and supply bypass) plus chokes in series with the headphone connections to allow the headphone cord to serve as the FM antenna. No filters or adjustments of any kind are needed. I would guess that the IBOC chip set is built around the same principles (extremely minimalist part count, no adjustments needed).

When we're talking about the reception quality on these new radios, we're talking about the ability of the radio to pull in weak signals when there are very strong signals on the band. With strong signals, these new tuners would likely sound as good as, if not better, than good quality all-analog designs.

Here's another piece of information: Silicon Labs tuner-on-a-chip offerings are currently FM only, but there are plans for AM/FM products. I assume that the AM/FM chip would use a ferrite rod antenna for AM, but I don't know how they could feasibly make that into a no-tune design.

Here's yet another piece of information: The Silicon Labs AM/FM chip is the Si4730/Si4731. See http://www.silabs.com/tgwWebApp/public/web_content/products/Broadcast/Radio_Tune rs/en/Si4730-31.htm

This thing just couples to a loop antenna through a capacitor. It has an internal varactor diode to resonate the antenna, and it is designed to handle a wide range of antenna inductances.

What about the EXISTING FM tuner with RDS?

iPod Radio Remote

Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. You also get a set of earphones with a shorter cable that's a perfect fit for the remote. Compatible with iPod nano and iPod with video.
Price: $49.00

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=EF8 87A87&nplm=MA070G%2FC

what about AM?

Re AM reception:
After I poked around the Silicon Labs website, I saw a press release dated January of this year that stated that their AM/FM chip that I mentioned above is now in production. According to them, this is the first AM-capable receiver of this kind. We might see some media players with AM capability in the near future if Silicon Labs is correct about there being a demand for AM on mp3 players if it can be implemented cheaply.

Kent randles asks-- <what> When did The Real Don Steel come back from above and what station is he on and did he bring Tina Delgado with him? LOL He was a top favorite of mine. Sorry I couldn't resist. Carry on

I don't know how those "can-less" tuners-on-chips would even be worth the cost of production and implementation in the long run. Honestly, I'd say if they are used in conjunction with digital circuitry (like one of those DVD/VCR/TV Tuner gizmos, or an IBAC radio for example) they better at least have some sort of RF shielding or the sound/picture is going to be hellaciously noisy!!

(I just bet even those tuners aren't immune to noise and on certain frequencies will emit scratchy sound or staticky picture when a digital RF-generating device is used in its presence.)

Just have to wait and see I suppose.

Cheaper they can make them the better (from their perspective, anyways) it seems. Skimp on performance, save a buck. Shameful the industry has come to this.

I am not certain about regular MPEG3 audio devices like Apples or Creatives, never needed to own or use one because I have a Panasonic CD player that can run Redbook CDs and MPEG3 audio off CDROMs. It has an AM/FM radio in it.

Took one apart a while back after I crashed it out on a really hard landing jumping a dirt bike last Summer (CD I was listening to didn't survive either!!) Pretty simple-looking circuit actually, just a coupla ICs, few capacitors and resistors and that's pretty much it.

Sensitivity on the thing is total crap, sometimes I even wonder how they can call it a "radio" aside from being able to tune AM/FM frequencies.

When I listen in the presence of my MicroZak™ Dimension model ATX40000 with a Pentium 4 (my XP machine) it's a wonder stations even come in at all on that rig.

Shane--
Earbuds suck a--- as far as I am concerned. The bigger the speaker I can put over my ears the better off we all will be!!

I hate absolutely HATE the ear pieces that come with an IPOD! THey go directly into your ear, which is the absolute worst kind of earphones not to mention a fast way to lose your hearing!

Since I started my current job, I have heard many weird stories about the current state of electronics engineering, especially as it pertains to cost-sensitive applications like consumer products. The idea of designing an RF product like a radio without employing any RF design engineers is not an exaggeration. There is a growing expectation today that chip manufacturers provide "plug and play" reference designs that can just be thrown down on a circuit board. If there's a major problem, then the chip maker's applications engineers get a call.

Let me share a story: the company that I work for now had come up with the idea that one of its chips could be used in a modem. Modem manufacturers were contacted to try to sell them on our chip. One of these manufacturers actually said something like, we don't design our own modems. None of our engineers knows how to design a modem. We just build reference designs.

What I think will happen with these radio and TV tuner chips is that their specs, as characterized by the chip makers under very carefully controlled conditions will be OK. They won't perform as well as carefully engineered tuners using low noise components like GaAs transistors, but they will be better than a 1970s transistor radio. When these chips go into radios, you will end up with some designs that are done properly and give performance close to what the tuner chip's capabilities. You will also have some radios and TVs with shitty board layouts that are full of birdies and noise.

"You will also have some radios and TVs with shitty board layouts that are full of birdies and noise."

That would be anything "DuraBrand" coming out of Wal-Mart! Stay away from this whether it be a stereo or a toaster....it's all crap!!!

Speaking of earbuds, there are some high-end earbuds (I think made by Shure) that are in the $100-$150 price range. According to a co-worker who bought a pair, they sound about as good as a decent pair of headphones, but they block outside sounds very well without crushing your head! The secret to this is that the piece that goes into the ear has a foam cushion that expands to fit the shape of the ear canal, thereby making for an airtight fit.

This sounds fine and dandy, except for the price tag. I guess that if one were doing a lot of flying, these might be worth the price because of the ambient sound blocking properties.

Finally, why would earbuds be more damaging to your hearing than traditional headphones? I would think that listening to any type of earpiece or headphone with excessively high volume is equally damaging.

Fortunately, I haven't wasted any money on DuraBrand products. GPX is another one of these skimpy brands. Surprisingly, though, somewhere I read that one of the early Boston Acoustics HD radios had RF noise problems, too!

IMHO, I agree with Alfredo on the volume being the primary issue.

One thing I'm concerned about, that occurs very often with inexpensive head gear of all kinds, is response spikes. Many cheaper units have far from a flat response curve that really can cause some damage.

What people will do, is crank the volume until the extremes are at a comfortable level. This exceeds the safe levels in the middle, or where the peak response spikes are.

Check it--this is what I got for Christmas last year:

http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm_eng.nsf/root/04974

What's the difference between these earphones and the similar HD280 Silver model?? These are black.

They are what I have plugged in to my CD player when I am out on the board. Can't wear them on the bike tho--too big to fit in my helmet.

wouldn't it be dangerous to listen to headphones while cycling?

like you might not be able to hear other users of the roadways.

could make a cyclist appear to be arrogantly hogging the way rather than just unaware of his surroundings.

It used to be illegal to drive a motor vehicle while wearing headphones. it may still be.

"wouldn't it be dangerous to listen to headphones while cycling?....like you might not be able to hear other users of the roadways."

Just depends on what type of 'phones you have, how loud you listen etc.

I use Sony MDR-G57 phones mounted in the ear-pads of a G-Max dirt bike helmet connected to a CD player whose volume rarely (if ever) exceeds about 3 or 4. FYI, this is a comfortable listening level for, say, a restaurant or a grocery store for example. With the small design of the earphones and the low level I can still fully hear the road noise, cars and other bikes, and have been able to safely navigate 4th/Mill Plain, 18th and even Downtown Coove.

(One peculiarity I have noticed in this regard is listening to a monophonic recording seems to be way less distracting than stereo. Probably beause with mono, it doesn't have the directional properties of stereo, so any effects mapped to a certain speaker in a stereo recording, say a loud "explosion" in the right channel would make me think there was something happening on my right side. This isn't the case with mono. Weird...)

So really it just depends. If you listen really loud over a big pair of earphones while on a bike, well, let's just say there are *far* safer ways to justify an ambulence ride to the emergency room!!


"It used to be illegal to drive a motor vehicle while wearing headphones. it may still be."

As far as I am aware, not in Washington. Note I don't wear earphones while driving the truck but I *have* seen many other people do it. (Probably the same crowd who uses text-message devices while doing about 60 down 205.......)

Never seen any of then get nabbed by the Cops, either.